Sample Ballot Initiative Questions
|
Always Under Construction |
The purpose of this page is to provide some examples of some specific
languages used in previous and upcoming public transportation ballot
initiatives and referendums. We have organized each section based
on what type of question they have proposed to voters. We hope this
will be of some use to you when you decide to start crafting language
for your particular public transportation initiative.
Authority Creation
Denton County, Texas, November 2002, Passed 73% to 27%
| Shall the creation of the Denton County Transportation Authority
be confirmed? |
Kitsap County, Washington, November 2003, Failed 64% to
35%
| Kitsap Transit Proposition No. 1 concerns passenger-only ferry
service and revenue to implement the service. This proposition
would approve Kitsap Transit’s Passenger-Only Ferry Investment
Plan for local and cross-sound passenger-only ferry service
initially from Kingston, Bremerton and Southworth to Seattle
and authorize Kitsap Transit to levy local sales and use taxes
on taxable transactions of 3/10 of one percent and a motor vehicle
excise tax on license renewals in the amount at 3/10 of one
percent of the value of motor vehicles, to be used solely for
passenger-only ferry service.
Should this proposition be approved? |
Summit County, Utah, November 2003, Passed 70% to 30%
| Shall the Snyderville Basin Public Transit District impose
a sales and use tax of .25% within the District's boundaries,
the proceeds for which shall be utilized for the operations
and improvements to public residential and commercial transit
services within the District, to include funding for the Kimball
Area Transportation Special Services District? |
Miami-Dade County, November 2002, Passed 66% to 34%
Shall the county implement the People's
Transportation Plan including: Plans to build rapid transit
lines to West Daade, Kendall, Florida City, Miami Beach and
North Dade; expanding bus service; adding 635 buses; improving
traffic signalization to reduce traffic backups; improving
major and neighborhood roads and highways, including drainage;
and funding to municipalities for road and transportation
projects by levying a 1/2 percent sales surtax whose proceeds
will be overseen by the Citizen's Independent Transportation
Trust? |
Arlington, Texas, May 2002, Failed 58% to 42%
| Shall the creation of the Arlington Transit Authority be confirmed
and shall the levy of the proposed tax, not to exceed one-quarter
of the percent, be authorized? |
Lexington, Kentucky, November 2004
| Are you in favor of the establishment of a mass transportation
program, to be financed by the levy of an additional 6 cents
per $100 on all taxable property? |
Tucson, Arizon, November 2003, Failed 64% to 36%
Proposition 200
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TUCSON CITY CHARTER BUSINESS PRIVILEGE
TAX REFERRED BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL, RELATING TO INCREASING
THE 2% LIMIT ON THE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX AND DEDICATING
THE PORTION OVER 2% TO SPECIFIED TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES
A "YES" vote shall have the effect of raising the
2% limit on the transaction privilege tax to 2.3%, except
for construction contracting which is raised to 6%; placing
the portion of the tax over 2% into a transportation fund;
each dollar apportioned between public transit (66 cents),
neighborhood street maintenance (20 cents), bicycle and pedestrian
improvements (10 cents), and traffci enforcement (2 cents).
A "NO" vote shall have the effect of maintaining
the Tucson Charter's 2% limit on the City's transaction privilege
tax rate.
Proposition 201
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TUCSON CODE BY PUBLIC
INITIATIVE, RELATING TO ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM AND INCREASING THE TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX RATE TO
2.3% EXCEPT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING TAX RATE WHICH
IS INCREASED TO 6%
A "YES" vote shall have the effect of providing
for a comprehensive transportation system and increasing the
transaction privilege tax rate to 2.3% except for the construction
contracting tax rate which is increased to 6%, the increase
to fund the system
A "NO" vote shall have the effect of maintaining
the current provisions of the Tucson Code Chapters 19 and
30.
|
Funding Extensions and Increases
East Bay, California, November 2004
All registered voters in Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, El
Cerrito, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, Richmond, San Leandro,
San Pablo, and certain unincorporated areas of Alameda and Contra
Costa counties are eligible to vote on Measure BB.
| Measure BB: To preserve affordable local public transportation
services that allow seniors and people with disabilities to
remain independent, take students to and from school, help East
Bay residents commute to work and reduce traffic and air pollution
by reducing the number of cars on the road, shall the Alameda-Contra
Costa Transit District (AC Transit) increase its existing parcel
tax by $2 per parcel per month for ten years with an independent
fiscal oversight committee and all money staying local? |
Fairfax County, Virginia, November 2004
Shall the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia,
contract a debt, borrow money, and issue bonds of Fairfax County,
Virginia, in addition to transportation improvement bonds previously
authorized, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $165,000,000
for the purpose of providing funds for the cost of providing
additional transportation improvements and facilities, to finance
the cost of constructing, reconstructing, improving and acquiring
transportation improvements, including highways in the primary
and secondary systems of State highways, off-street parking,
pedestrian improvements, and ancillary related improvements
and facilities, and including capital costs of necessary land,
transit facilities and equipment in the Washington metropolitan
area allocable to Fairfax County pursuant to the provisions
of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact?
YES/NO |
Arlington County, Virginia, November 2004
| Shall Arlington County contract a debt and issue its general
obligation bonds in the maximum amount of $18,536,000 to finance,
together with other available funds, the cost of construction,
acquisition, and rehabilitation of Metro facilities by the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority? |
Grand Rapids, Michigan, November 2003, Passed 67% to 33%
| Shall THE RAPID (Interurban Transit Partnership) levy a tax
for public transportation of up to 0.95 mills? This millage
is a renewal of the 0.75 mill approved by the voters in 2000
and an addition of 0.20 mills. This millage covers a period
of five (5) years, beginning i the year 2004 and continuing
through 2008, on the taxable value of all taxable property in
THE RAPID's district (the six cities of East Grand Rapids, Grandville,
Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Walker and Wyoming). This millage is
estimated to raise $9,014,232 in its first year. |
Lansing, Michigan, August 2004, Passed 60% to 40%
CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CATA)
MILLAGE PROPOSITION
CITY of LANSING, CITY of EAST LANSING, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP,
LANSING TOWNSHIP and DELHI TOWNSHIP
Shall the public transportation authority, the Capital Area
Transportation Authority(CATA), for continued service, as
provided for by Public Act 55 of 1963, as amended, replace
an existing tax levy of 1.4 mills (approved by the voters
in 1999) and a second levy of .82 mill (approved by the voters
in 2002) with (i) a renewal of 2.1878 mills (as rolled back
pursuant to the Headlee Act Amendment), and (ii) an increase
of 0.0322 mill for a total millage levy of 2.22 mills (that
being $2.22 per thousand dollars of taxable
value) on real and personal property located within CATA’s
service area, for five years, 2006-2010, inclusive? If approved
and levied, this millage would generate approximately $12,102,000.00
in 2006. |
Kansas City, Missouri, November 2003, Failed 37% to 62%
(Clay Chastain sponsored)
| Shall the City of Kansas City, Missouri, impose a city sales
tax at the rate of 1/2% for a period of 12 years with the proceeds
dedicated to creating a progressive public transportation system
that will increase mobility, reduce traffic congestion, improve
air quality, and foster the development of a more economically
viable, safer, and livable community via the following improvements
(including operation and maintenance), all of which will be
under the auspices of the City of Kansas City, Missouri and
the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA):
1. Increase the level of bus service across the City by adding
50 (total) new electric and hybrid-electric buses to the existing
bus fleet; and
2. Construct a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRT) from a Park
& Ride lot at Barry Road to Downtown operating on or in
the vicinity of the North Oak Trafficway and the Burlington
Avenue Corridor; and
3. Construct a Central Corridor Electric Streetcar line from
a Park & Ride lot at 75th Street to Downtown operating
on or in the vicinity of Main Street and the Country Club
Right of Way; and
4. Construct a Light Rail line from a Park & Ride lot
at the Truman Sports Complex to the Central Corridor operating
on or in the vicinity of Linwood Boulevard and the Rock Island
Right of Way; and
5. Construct a Multi-Modal Regional Transit Hub at, or in
the Vicinity of, Union Station; and acquire property for Transit
Stations, Rail Right of Ways and Park & Ride lots only;
and to establish bicycle lanes, retire bond indebtedness;
and secure state and federal matching funds?
|
Kansas City, Missouri, November 2003, Passed 69% to 30%
(KCATA sponsored)
| Shall the City of Kansas City enact a city sales tax for the
purposes of operating, maintaining, equipping and improving
the transit system, also known as the Metro, by the Kansas City
Area Transportation Authority for Kansas City, Missouri, as
authorized by Section 94.605 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri
at a rate of 3/8% for a period of 5 years? |
Indianfields Township, Michigan, August 2004, Passed 62%
to 38%
| Shall the previously voted increase in the tax limitation
imposed under Article IX, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution
on general ad valorem taxes within Indianfields Township be
renewed at 1 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable value) for the
period of (4) years, 2005 through 2008, inclusive, for the sole
and exclusive purpose of the continuation of public bus transportation
services within Indianfields Township; and shall the Township
levy such renewal in millage for said purposes, thereby, raising
in the first year and estimated $117,065? |
Columbus, Ohio, November 1999, Passed
| Shall the continuation of an existing sales and use tax be
levied for all transit purposes of the Central Ohio Transit
Authority at a rate not exceeding one-fourth of one percent
(1/4%) for a continuing period of time? |
Regional Transportation District (FasTracks), Denver, Colorado,
November 2004
| Shall regional transportation district taxes be increased
(first full fiscal year dollar increase) annually and by whatever
additional amounts are raised annually thereafter by increasing
the rate of sales tax levied by the district by four-tenths
of one percent, from the current six-tenths of one percent to
one percent commencing January 1 (first calendar year that commences
after the election at which the ballot question is submitted),
and, in connection therewith, shall regional transportation
district debt be increased (principal amount), with a repayment
cost of (maximum total district cost) with all proceeds of debt
and taxes to be used and spent for the construction and operation
of a fixed guide way mass transit system, the construction of
additional park-n-ride lots, the expansion and improvement of
existing park-n-ride lots, and increased bus service, including
the use of smaller buses and vans and alternative fuel vehicles
as appropriate, as specified in the transit expansion plan adopted
by the board of directors of the district on or before (specified
date) and shall debt be evidenced by bonds, notes, or other
multiple-fiscal year obligations including refunding bonds that
may be issued as a lower or higher rate of interest and including
debt that may have a redemption prior to maturity with or without
payment of a premium, payable from all revenues generated by
said tax increase, federal funds, investment income, public
and private contributions, and other revenues as the board may
determine, and with such revenues raised by the sales tax rate
increase and the proceeds of debt obligations and any investment
income on such revenues and proceeds being exempt from the revenue
and spending restrictions contained in section 20 of article
X of the Colorado constitution until such time as all debt is
repaid when the rate of tax will be decreased to that amount
necessary for the continued operation of the system but not
less than six-tenths of one percent? |
Miscellaneous
Richland Hills, Texas, February 2004, Passed 67% to 33%
| Shall the Fort Worth Transportation Authority be continued
in the City of Richland Hills? |
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, November
2004
| To protect public safety and keep Bay Area traffic moving
in the aftermath of an earthquake or other disaster, shall BART,
the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, be authorized
to issue bonds not to exceed $980 million dollars to make earthquake
safety improvements to BART facilities in Contra Costa, San
Francisco and Alameda Counties, including strengthening tunnels,
bridges, overhead tracks and the underwater Transbay Tube, and
establish an independent citizens' oversight committee to verify
bond revenues are spent as promised? |
Back to Top
|
